Leonin are annoying but otherwise inoffensive, but I take serious umbrage with magic resistance on satyrs. People say the Fey creature type is a huge disadvantage for satyr characters. I heartily disagree - the number of times not being classed as humanoid will save you from a Hold or Dominate person, a Charm Person, or any other spell that targets specifically humanoids far outweighs the number of times you'll be bothered by Prot G&E. Fey as your creature type is an advantage, not a drawback. Satyrs are super overloaded, which moderately sucks because 5e has a severe hateboner for trickster races/archetypes/characters and these things aren't going to help that in the slightest.
Two words: cold iron. Here's what I would do. Make cold iron a special weapon material as in 3e. Cost 1.5x like silvered weapons, and give all fey vulnerability to it. Fey in contact with cold iron either lose resistances and/or become poisoned based on how mean you want to be. I don't know why cold iron wasn't introduced in the PHB, as it was the primary means of taking down fiends and fey for characters without magical weapons in 3e.
Better idea: simply classify satyrs as both humanoid and fey, rather than just one or the other. Any effect that targets humanoids is valid, any effect that targets fey is also valid. This was the way it was with early playtests of dual-natured critters like the centaur, and the way it should absolutely still be. Now that Fey subtype is very much the disadvantage it purports to be.
Also regular-ass steel qualifies as Cold Iron in most stories I've encountered. Any metal weapon would trigger such a vulnerability. Magical weapons would likely reduce the chances of Cold Iron applying - anything crafted of mythril, or Gith Space Metal, or whatever else lets the fey off scot free.
Cold iron wasn't used in 5E because the game tried to do without the incredible rules bloat of previous editions. Also, cold iron was only ever effective against chaotic outsides, silver was needed against lawful outsiders.
Adding a vulnerability to cold iron to Satyrs would take them from being mildly strong to being ridiculously weak.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
We get to choose which story we'd like to follow. In 3e cold iron was a separate object. I think the argument went that since iron shaped without sufficient heat is brittle IRL, that weapons forged of cold iron must have some sort of magical property. On the other hand, having any metal qualify does have precedent in games such as Shadow of the Demon Lord.
So, Mythic Odysseys of Theros, or MOoT for short (I really like the abbreviation).
Overall, I like the book, but it's complicated. I have always loved Greek Mythology, love that we now have races for greek-based myths (Minotaurs and Centaurs are one of the few good things that came from GGR). I was upset at only 2 new races, especially because the Leonin is kind of plain, but the Satyr is great. The magic resistance is a bit broken, and will definitely cause problems, but I still like it. It's also a little upsetting at how limited the race options are for the whole setting. They have Anvilwrought and Nyxborn supernatural gifts, why not include a part in that chapter allowing other races, as long as you were created by gods?
Again, the subclasses are a bit disappointing. Only 2 more options, with no spells, and fairly limited character types for both subclasses. My favorite subclass from this book is the Eloquence Bard. I liked the changes they made to it. I did not like the changes made to the Heroism Paladin, making less Greek themed, and more of a generic paladin. It feels less self-centered, and more of a team player, which doesn't feel like a greek hero-theme to me.
The monsters are great. The magic items are great. I would have liked more of both, though. I was half-expecting a section in the bestiary for each god and their servants, like we got for Ravnica's guilds, but unfortunately we did not get that.
I honestly couldn't care any less about the mythos and gods of Theros. I know Greek Mythology, have a connection with it, and would have preferred a true greek setting, instead of a Magic: the Gathering, cash-grabbing, greek-knock off book. I like that we have some greek options now, but I really would have preferred a true greek book.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
So, Mythic Odysseys of Theros, or MOoT for short (I really like the abbreviation).
Overall, I like the book, but it's complicated. I have always loved Greek Mythology, love that we now have races for greek-based myths (Minotaurs and Centaurs are one of the few good things that came from GGR). I was upset at only 2 new races, especially because the Leonin is kind of plain, but the Satyr is great. The magic resistance is a bit broken, and will definitely cause problems, but I still like it. It's also a little upsetting at how limited the race options are for the whole setting. They have Anvilwrought and Nyxborn supernatural gifts, why not include a part in that chapter allowing other races, as long as you were created by gods?
Again, the subclasses are a bit disappointing. Only 2 more options, with no spells, and fairly limited character types for both subclasses. My favorite subclass from this book is the Eloquence Bard. I liked the changes they made to it. I did not like the changes made to the Heroism Paladin, making less Greek themed, and more of a generic paladin. It feels less self-centered, and more of a team player, which doesn't feel like a greek hero-theme to me.
The monsters are great. The magic items are great. I would have liked more of both, though. I was half-expecting a section in the bestiary for each god and their servants, like we got for Ravnica's guilds, but unfortunately we did not get that.
I honestly couldn't care any less about the mythos and gods of Theros. I know Greek Mythology, have a connection with it, and would have preferred a true greek setting, instead of a Magic: the Gathering, cash-grabbing, greek-knock off book. I like that we have some greek options now, but I really would have preferred a true greek book.
I agree with this. the piety system also adds another level of un needed complication.
we can all agree the name is a "MOoT" point tho
he he he
I am dying inside
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The piety system is somewhat innovative, but I could see a host of ways it could be improved and made more innovative.
The Mythic Monsters are cool. In fact for the most part the beastairy is good. There were two more Archons that should have been in it, and the 4 CR Celestial mounts should have had more utility abilities as that is a key design point for celestials and why Conjure Celestial only summons celestials of 4 CR or 5 CR with a highet slot, the expectation is they come pacted with utility magic.
Most of the cities are fine, Setessna is a mess of themes that undermine each other. Fantasy Amazons don't make sense outside of societies that have hard gender roles, and making fantasy Amazon city with hard gender roles very gender fluid, unmines the point of having hard gender roles. They should have made the gender fluid city seperate.
This book from what I've seen feels like the SCAG, but with a partial monster manuel tacked on. It feels like a region book, instead of a fleshed out setting, a fault that Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica shared.
They also in the beastiary section picked all the worst nymph art they had, which is sad because they had some great pieces.
And as far as I can tell they left out two important cities that were in the Theros short stories, which was a missed opportunities.
I like that we got chariot rules in it.
Almost all the book can be cannibalized for other D&D Settings easily, unlike large amounts of Ravnica.
Oreads were made too fire based, they are mountain nymphs and should at least have gotten meld with stone.
They should have explained why Neieds can fly of all things.
The thing that really gets to me is like GGtR one gets the feeling that being an MtG setting really tied its hands. They filled in basic gaps and blanks, but they were too afraid to expand the setting beyond the tight space MtG explored. Trax is mentioned, but they do no explorations of the Archons homelands. Its mention in Theros fiction that thetr are entire civilizations in the seas that gets ignored. And there are so threating empires that are important to Greek flavour, no fantasy Persia or Egypt ect..., to challenge the Therosans, which really takes away from the Greek flavour.
I find myself comparing it to Explorer's Guide to Wildemoun, which to my surprise blew me away, and finding myself increasingly disappointed in Theros. The MtG settings are just too thematically tight, and undeveloped. They feel like minisettings compared to Exandia and Eberron and the Forgotten Realms. It doesn't help that their setting introduction leaves them doing too many things to do a proper job of setting building. Like most 5e books they try to be everything and so do very few things well.
Really Theros should have been a Campaign Setting Guide book, a Monsters of Theros, and a Players Guide to Theros books to do it right. Mythic Odysseys of Theros has some really cool stuff in it, but its a very disappointing book because of what it could have been, just like GGtR. Both needed to either bigger or multiple books to build settings that are of the caliber of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Darksun, Mystara, Birthright, and now Exandia. It feels like your getting part of a setting with the MtG setting books, so much missed potential.
Ravnica is the bad Saturday morning cartoon version of a 'warring factions' setting. All of the "Guilds" in Ravnica have one, UND PRECISELY VUN, schtick, to which each and every single member of the guild is fanatically devoted without the slightest question or hesitation no matter how baffling and/or counterproductive that schtick is.
*edited
I appreciate your take on it. I disagree as it's one of the best settings I've read in a very long time, but, my goal wasn't to sway you or anything. It was simply to hear some opposition to my love for it and you've provided that.
Sure. Despite what some have said, my vitriolic hatred of that book has never extended to anyone who likes it or wants to play with it. It's a miserable fit for me and my games, but the cool thing is that has no bearing whatsoever on your games, ne?
I could take or leave the majority of this book and honestly it was disappointing.
I love the Piety system and would 100% bring this back into other campaigns. That's possibly the shining gold nugget in the river of this release.
Class options are what I most look forward to and UA released so many as well as class variants that I expected more from Theros than the two we got which were also two that didn't really vibe with me. My partner very much enjoys the Bard though.
Mythic Actions and the whole "This is my final form" is cool but it's cool the first time you'll do it and become old pretty fast. It's a great end boss thing.
I appreciate WotC throwing a lot of love for their Magic settings to push forward new things but setting them out like this feels like we get not much all at once. As much as I'm not a fan of the settings too much, Theros almost got me there and Ikoria would interest me, I'd be a hundred times more interested if we had a Theros Players Guide with a bunch of Greek character options, the Piety system etc. And then one big chunky book with the other stuff for a campaign guide.
I'm absolutely loving the new Theros guide--albeit more from a DM perspective than a player perspective. In particular I love the lore, the deities (and the related mechanics like piety), the monsters, and the races. I also like how the world beyond the city-states and major mainland continent is not only unknown and unexplored but ever changing with the whims of the gods, maybe even with the beliefs of the populace, etc. This might well be one of my favorite official 5E campaign guides to date, although to be honest, I'm pretty fond of all of the other ones too (Ravnica, Eberron, Sword Coast, Wildemount), so bear that in mind if your mileage varies on any of those... Oh, and just as another point of reference, I've never played Magic the Gathering, so my enthusiasm for this guide has nothing to do with that. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Author of Fellozial's Ultimate Guide to Poison, The Primal Gith, and other forthcoming titles at DMs Guild
I was actually pretty irritated by the flying chariot (which is different from the rules for chariots, but you set me off, sorry). Of course something pulled by flying creatures will also fly. If it's a magic flying chariot, I expect a chariot that grants the power of flight. Sure, bump the rarity up or something, but don't call a +1 AC chariot pulled by a pegasus a flying chariot. Especially because by doing so you're saying I can't do that with any bog standard chariot.
Well, really, a nonmagical chariot shouldn't be able to fly if it's being pulled by a pegasus either, due to weight and balance issues. But yes, a magic item called a flying chariot should grant the power of flight to whatever is used to pull it. Call one that's designed to be pulled by flying creatures a sky chariot or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two words: cold iron. Here's what I would do. Make cold iron a special weapon material as in 3e. Cost 1.5x like silvered weapons, and give all fey vulnerability to it. Fey in contact with cold iron either lose resistances and/or become poisoned based on how mean you want to be. I don't know why cold iron wasn't introduced in the PHB, as it was the primary means of taking down fiends and fey for characters without magical weapons in 3e.
Better idea: simply classify satyrs as both humanoid and fey, rather than just one or the other. Any effect that targets humanoids is valid, any effect that targets fey is also valid. This was the way it was with early playtests of dual-natured critters like the centaur, and the way it should absolutely still be. Now that Fey subtype is very much the disadvantage it purports to be.
Also regular-ass steel qualifies as Cold Iron in most stories I've encountered. Any metal weapon would trigger such a vulnerability. Magical weapons would likely reduce the chances of Cold Iron applying - anything crafted of mythril, or Gith Space Metal, or whatever else lets the fey off scot free.
Please do not contact or message me.
Cold iron wasn't used in 5E because the game tried to do without the incredible rules bloat of previous editions. Also, cold iron was only ever effective against chaotic outsides, silver was needed against lawful outsiders.
Adding a vulnerability to cold iron to Satyrs would take them from being mildly strong to being ridiculously weak.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
We get to choose which story we'd like to follow. In 3e cold iron was a separate object. I think the argument went that since iron shaped without sufficient heat is brittle IRL, that weapons forged of cold iron must have some sort of magical property. On the other hand, having any metal qualify does have precedent in games such as Shadow of the Demon Lord.
So, Mythic Odysseys of Theros, or MOoT for short (I really like the abbreviation).
Overall, I like the book, but it's complicated. I have always loved Greek Mythology, love that we now have races for greek-based myths (Minotaurs and Centaurs are one of the few good things that came from GGR). I was upset at only 2 new races, especially because the Leonin is kind of plain, but the Satyr is great. The magic resistance is a bit broken, and will definitely cause problems, but I still like it. It's also a little upsetting at how limited the race options are for the whole setting. They have Anvilwrought and Nyxborn supernatural gifts, why not include a part in that chapter allowing other races, as long as you were created by gods?
Again, the subclasses are a bit disappointing. Only 2 more options, with no spells, and fairly limited character types for both subclasses. My favorite subclass from this book is the Eloquence Bard. I liked the changes they made to it. I did not like the changes made to the Heroism Paladin, making less Greek themed, and more of a generic paladin. It feels less self-centered, and more of a team player, which doesn't feel like a greek hero-theme to me.
The monsters are great. The magic items are great. I would have liked more of both, though. I was half-expecting a section in the bestiary for each god and their servants, like we got for Ravnica's guilds, but unfortunately we did not get that.
I honestly couldn't care any less about the mythos and gods of Theros. I know Greek Mythology, have a connection with it, and would have preferred a true greek setting, instead of a Magic: the Gathering, cash-grabbing, greek-knock off book. I like that we have some greek options now, but I really would have preferred a true greek book.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree with this. the piety system also adds another level of un needed complication.
we can all agree the name is a "MOoT" point tho
he he he
I am dying inside
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The piety system is somewhat innovative, but I could see a host of ways it could be improved and made more innovative.
The Mythic Monsters are cool. In fact for the most part the beastairy is good. There were two more Archons that should have been in it, and the 4 CR Celestial mounts should have had more utility abilities as that is a key design point for celestials and why Conjure Celestial only summons celestials of 4 CR or 5 CR with a highet slot, the expectation is they come pacted with utility magic.
Most of the cities are fine, Setessna is a mess of themes that undermine each other. Fantasy Amazons don't make sense outside of societies that have hard gender roles, and making fantasy Amazon city with hard gender roles very gender fluid, unmines the point of having hard gender roles. They should have made the gender fluid city seperate.
This book from what I've seen feels like the SCAG, but with a partial monster manuel tacked on. It feels like a region book, instead of a fleshed out setting, a fault that Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica shared.
They also in the beastiary section picked all the worst nymph art they had, which is sad because they had some great pieces.
And as far as I can tell they left out two important cities that were in the Theros short stories, which was a missed opportunities.
I like that we got chariot rules in it.
Almost all the book can be cannibalized for other D&D Settings easily, unlike large amounts of Ravnica.
Oreads were made too fire based, they are mountain nymphs and should at least have gotten meld with stone.
They should have explained why Neieds can fly of all things.
The thing that really gets to me is like GGtR one gets the feeling that being an MtG setting really tied its hands. They filled in basic gaps and blanks, but they were too afraid to expand the setting beyond the tight space MtG explored. Trax is mentioned, but they do no explorations of the Archons homelands. Its mention in Theros fiction that thetr are entire civilizations in the seas that gets ignored. And there are so threating empires that are important to Greek flavour, no fantasy Persia or Egypt ect..., to challenge the Therosans, which really takes away from the Greek flavour.
I find myself comparing it to Explorer's Guide to Wildemoun, which to my surprise blew me away, and finding myself increasingly disappointed in Theros. The MtG settings are just too thematically tight, and undeveloped. They feel like minisettings compared to Exandia and Eberron and the Forgotten Realms. It doesn't help that their setting introduction leaves them doing too many things to do a proper job of setting building. Like most 5e books they try to be everything and so do very few things well.
Really Theros should have been a Campaign Setting Guide book, a Monsters of Theros, and a Players Guide to Theros books to do it right. Mythic Odysseys of Theros has some really cool stuff in it, but its a very disappointing book because of what it could have been, just like GGtR. Both needed to either bigger or multiple books to build settings that are of the caliber of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Darksun, Mystara, Birthright, and now Exandia. It feels like your getting part of a setting with the MtG setting books, so much missed potential.
I appreciate your take on it. I disagree as it's one of the best settings I've read in a very long time, but, my goal wasn't to sway you or anything. It was simply to hear some opposition to my love for it and you've provided that.
Thank you!
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Sure. Despite what some have said, my vitriolic hatred of that book has never extended to anyone who likes it or wants to play with it. It's a miserable fit for me and my games, but the cool thing is that has no bearing whatsoever on your games, ne?
Have fun with it, Thicc Gobb
Please do not contact or message me.
I could take or leave the majority of this book and honestly it was disappointing.
I love the Piety system and would 100% bring this back into other campaigns. That's possibly the shining gold nugget in the river of this release.
Class options are what I most look forward to and UA released so many as well as class variants that I expected more from Theros than the two we got which were also two that didn't really vibe with me. My partner very much enjoys the Bard though.
Mythic Actions and the whole "This is my final form" is cool but it's cool the first time you'll do it and become old pretty fast. It's a great end boss thing.
I appreciate WotC throwing a lot of love for their Magic settings to push forward new things but setting them out like this feels like we get not much all at once.
As much as I'm not a fan of the settings too much, Theros almost got me there and Ikoria would interest me, I'd be a hundred times more interested if we had a Theros Players Guide with a bunch of Greek character options, the Piety system etc. And then one big chunky book with the other stuff for a campaign guide.
I'm absolutely loving the new Theros guide--albeit more from a DM perspective than a player perspective. In particular I love the lore, the deities (and the related mechanics like piety), the monsters, and the races. I also like how the world beyond the city-states and major mainland continent is not only unknown and unexplored but ever changing with the whims of the gods, maybe even with the beliefs of the populace, etc. This might well be one of my favorite official 5E campaign guides to date, although to be honest, I'm pretty fond of all of the other ones too (Ravnica, Eberron, Sword Coast, Wildemount), so bear that in mind if your mileage varies on any of those... Oh, and just as another point of reference, I've never played Magic the Gathering, so my enthusiasm for this guide has nothing to do with that. :)
I was actually pretty irritated by the flying chariot (which is different from the rules for chariots, but you set me off, sorry). Of course something pulled by flying creatures will also fly. If it's a magic flying chariot, I expect a chariot that grants the power of flight. Sure, bump the rarity up or something, but don't call a +1 AC chariot pulled by a pegasus a flying chariot. Especially because by doing so you're saying I can't do that with any bog standard chariot.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Well, really, a nonmagical chariot shouldn't be able to fly if it's being pulled by a pegasus either, due to weight and balance issues. But yes, a magic item called a flying chariot should grant the power of flight to whatever is used to pull it. Call one that's designed to be pulled by flying creatures a sky chariot or something.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.